re: nuclear to fuel hydrogen economy idiotic ! Big Kahuna!Sounds...

re: nuclear to fuel hydrogen economy idiotic ! Big Kahuna!
Sounds like you have really put a lot of thought into this topic but you too make a lot of assumptions. Hydrogen is far from perfect. It is not a source of energy but a method of storing it for mobile transport needs. There is no other way to convert stationary energy into mobile energy for a post oil/gas world. You are assuming proponents of the technology would be advocating we drive our hydrogen cars to work, to do the shopping, to go to the footy on the weekend. Just won't be the case. The reality is that in a world post oil/gas, we would most likely be far less mobile as the costs associated with travelling could very well make it a luxury. So there would be far less traffic. Most mobile energy needs would be in the shipping and rail sector as essential trade of food in particular would have to occur. People tend to fall into the trap of visualising a 20 car pile-up on a freeway with hydrogen tanks exploding left right and centre. Just won't happen!

And since when have energy inefficiencies bothered the project of mankind! What a joke? Inefficiencies exist is hyrdogen no-one is argueing there but this is a problem also associated with oil and gas, food production, biodiesel energy equations. For example, it takes seven calories to produce every calorie that is actually utilised by the human body! I would say that is far more inefficient that hydrogen!

Who knows what the future holds but the one thing that is an unchangeale fact is that oil and gas will become far more expensive than nuclear energy (uranium only accounts for 5% of the variable cost of providing nuclear energy), but the problem is nuclear is stationary and oil and gas are mobile energies.

My advice is keep asking questions but don't form your opinions too strongly without fully thinking through how this world will function in a future of expensive oil and gas!!!